♪ ♪ hello, america. i'm judge judge judge filling in for glenn this week who is on vacation. tonight on the docket, the price of oil and growing government debt. the bloody protest in the middle east and north america set the price of oil skyrocketing. oil is trading at a half-year high of over $100 a barrel. and consumer saw 33% gallon

gas price jump at the pump in the last two weeks. meanwhile, the federal government continues racking up endless debt. today is $14 trillion. by the end of next year, if the president gets his way, it will be over $15.6 trillion. that debt is money. you and your children will have to pay back. our progeny will be born as financial slaves to the federal government, as they will have their way to tax to spend for spending that occurred before they were born. yet the big government shakedown doesn't stop there. part of the reason gasoline is so expensive because of the unconstitutional government interference. you see, the government, the federal government is sitting on huge reserves of oil. it places nonsensical drilling restrictions on oil companies and heavies huge taxes on gasoline are you ready for this? from 1981 to 2008, federal and local governments state

governments as well have collected half a trillion dollars more in oil tax revenue than oil companies made in profit. so who is really gouging you? after all of this big government meddling and gasoline and debt, it all means one thing. that gas costs more than it should. and that our children are going to pay for the drug addict like spending addiction of politicians today. but here now, a tea party endorsed senator. committed to getting the government out of the oil market. kentucky senator rand paul. he is also the author of a fascinating new book, "the tea party goes to washington." welcome. >> good to be with you. >> glenn: so i want to talk about oil. i want to talk about the book. i want to talk about the debt. and your colleague senator mike lee will be joining us in a couple of moments. the federal government charges 18 cents a gallon in tax at the pump. nothing to do with getting the oil to you.

should we pay that and should the government reduce that tax when oil is spiking 33% in two weeks? >> most of the push i hear, people all wanting to raise the tax we're lucky if we keep the tax where it is, probably what we need to do is have a government friendly to business. we all need electricity. we all need gasoline for our cars. but we have a government right now that i think is the most antibusiness government or administration that we've had in my lifetime >> yet, the president appoints someone like bill daley, the brother of the soon to be exgovernor of chicago and former senior vice president, jp morgan chase to put on the front of being in favor of business. the president went along with keeping the bush era tax rates where they were in the lame duck era of congress. claiming that he is in favor of this. his words don't always match up with what he is doing. >> he claims he wants to do something about regulations but then they have this sort of nebulous code they will use and say they will get

regulations as long as they don't effect human dignity. a lot of us wonder how you are going to measure human dignity in relation to trillion-dollar regulations. i think that's impossible. >> glenn: >> a federal judge in new orleans, martin feldman, ordered the government to process drill -- process wells for drilling there was nothing wrong with the other 30 rigs. the government inspented the other 30 and said they're doing what they're supposed to be doing, but we won't allow you to drill. the judge feldman held officials in the interior department in contempt and they left one drill. now they are appealing it on the what? are they crazy? >> we prevent them from drilling and then we increase and have to pay the unemployment benefit. it is a crazy system. we worry about being energy independent and sending troops to the middle east to guard

the oil and take care of the oil production there, but we don't drill for oil in our country. our electricity comes primarily from coal. half of the electricity comes from burning coal in kentucky, it's 90% that comes from burning coal, but yet they won't give permits. we have permits there for seven years. >> what should we do with the enormous reserve the government has? should we tap it now? does the government belong in business of owning this much oil? >> we need to get the government out of the business. the way they distribute in the marketplace, they have a price and someone makes a profit. if you don't make a profit, you get booted out of the business. the government is never any good at making profit. the reason we want government to be small, they don't work for a profit and they aren't efficient. >> someone who agree with you,

senator mike lee. he spearheaded government amendment to the senate. it almost made it. even though i'm sitting with someone who voted with you, i was shocked and surprised, pleasantly so, that you almost got it through. is there another chance at this one, amendment to require the government only to spend what it takes in? >> absolutely. we will keep pushing this issue until it succeeds. we got 11 democrats to vote with us the next time it will be more. everyone knows the people are overwhelmingly behind the idea of balanced budget amendment. congress won't fix the problem until it's legally required to. people expect for members of congress to impose the legal obligation on themselves. >> now that we won't have a balanced budget amendment, because there weren't enough votes in the senate to stop a filibuster, a modern day mill buster. there was no jimmenie stewart goes to washington. will you, senator paul -- i

believe senator lee will do this. will you vote against raising the debt ceiling? >> i can't imagine why i would vote to raise the debt ceiling. i told people i would under one instance; that is, we pass balanced budget amendment to the constitution and show significant budgetary reform, significant budget cuts, maybe a five-year plan to balance the budget and balanced budget amendment. unfortunately, i don't see those things coming. the one thing is mike lee is going to bring the balanced budget amendment up again. it will be voted on again hopefully before the debt ceiling. >> senator lee, your colleague senator paul in the studio with me proposed $500 billion cut or reduction in the president's budget for 2012. his father told me even that is not a enough. they need $500 billion a year for three or four years or $1.6 trillion so effectively we have a balanced budget so effectively the president doesn't spend more than he takes in what are the chances of that happening? >> the chances are not good.

congress continues to kick the can down the road because it can. even though every time we kick it, it gets more painful. next time it may kill us. taking in $1.7 trillion a year in new debt. what this translates into are thousands and thousands of dollars per person every single year that the government is borrowing against us we can't do that. it's costing us jobs it's costing our economy the ability to heal itself. we can't move forward until we get a balanced budget amendment in place. >> can you senator lee, prevent the senate from voting in favor of raising the debt ceiling? can you filibuster it? do they have 60 or 61, whatever it now takes to break that filibuster? is there a chance that the president, this president in the next few months might actually have to live within econ 101, where he doesn't spend more than he takes in? >> i certainly hope we're within a few months of where this president and this administration, this congress might live within the money

brought in the federal government every year. to answer the first part of your question, i'm not sure what the outcome will be. i'm sure what my vote will be. i will resist any effort to raise the national debt ceiling. that will include utilizing filibuster rules. >> earlier today the president suggested that nato forces may consider military action in libya. nato forces would, of course, include the united states. presumably. we're integral part of nato do we have any business doing that? >> i think america should be reluctant to go to war. it should be a last resort. fully discussed in the senate and the house. we should talk about our national interest threatened and talk about the practical aspect of are we whether to be in three wars simultaneously? i'm relucktant to vote to send my kids to war or your kids to war or me to war unless our national security is truly threatened. >> senator lee, it interesting that senator paul said he is reluctant to vote.

you know, as well as i, under a terrible law, the war powers act, the president can commit to us a land war, or an air war, whatever he wants to do for 90 days and renew it for another 90 days and there is nothing congress can do about it. is he planning to do something like that, whether the american people or the congress wants its or not? even though the congress says only congress shall declare war? >> i certainly hope not. >> every time congress does something it's not supposed to do, we have a problem. in some ways we have a greater problem when congress fails to do something it is supposed to do. when we go to war, there ought to be a declaration of war and we ought to set out what the military objections are, so we know why we're getting into it and when cons have been fulfilled to bring our brave young men and women home. >> earlier today, the president signed executive order calling for indefinite intention for people at guantanamo bay. stated differently, even if they are try and found not guilty he wants to hold them there for as long as he wants

to hold them there. something he spoke out against when he was senator obama. would the senate be willing to go along with that? >> i spoke to a mother who lost someone in 9/11 in one of the twin towers attacks and she said to me she wants justice it should be a trial and do something with people who are responsible for this. indefinite detention is not a good idea let's have trial and justice. >> last question, senator lee, i know in your youth you clerked for a justice of the supreme court of the united states do you think the supreme court would go for something that no western government has ever claimed? the power to detain, to incarcerate after acquittal? after a jury finds them not guilty? they still go back to jail? what is the sense of having a trial? >> it seems unlikely in the tea leaves we have been given by the supreme court in the last few years. in light of a scenario you

painted a few minutes ago when you have someone tried and found not guilty, ongoing after that seems problematic. >> senator mike lee from tu and rand paul from kentucky. before we get, forget, senator paul's new book "the tea party goes to washington." your favorite fill-in for glenn beck is in here. it's a great book. not because you quoted me but it describes small government in big government town. good luck with the book. thank you for joining us. senator lee, thank you for joining us as well. now let's get perspective from someone outside of washington. here is david buckner. adjunct professor of economics and business at columbia university. a person whose judgment i value greatly. welcome back to judge judge filling in for glenn beck on the "glenn beck program." >> good to be with you. >> in february, the "wall street journal" report that

the federal government spent $333 billion and collected $110 billion and borrowed $223 billion. could any business operate on that kind of a model? >> if you put that in a household or a business, you recognize those things in a home or business would be considered bankruptcysy. when the government does it, it's called a deficit, missing, underage. that would not be solvent. >> i don't know if you heard governor rand paul from kentucky and mike lee from kentucky indicated they would vote against giving the government authority to raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money when the borrow authority runs out, which they estimate will happen sometime in the next couple of months. what do you say to the dooms savers who claim we'll go bankrupt, the full faith and credit of the country will

mean nothing, we won't pay the bill. this would be a financial catastrophe if tim geithner can't go out there and borrow money. >> you and i have had this discussion the rest of the world needs to hear it the truth of the matter we're already bankrupt in the sense we're not covering our cost. we are spending more than we take in. we are living on the confidence and trust of the world there is some element of truth we'll betray the trust, but they will simply raise the interest rate and charge us more for that which they loan. consequently, it's not the destruction of all things but at some point in time when they recognize we can't pay it back and will not pay it back, that is the point of time we need to be terrified in the way they view us. then they call in the debt not just raise the interest rate as they indicated they would. >> what is wrong with saying to the president of the united states saying your job is to

make hard decisions. here is the money you take in. here are the expenses. make it work that's what we hired you to do. >> we have businesses that have to function that way. as the senator identified the government is not a business. every time they use the word "investment," judge, it's not true. governments don't invest they transfer. they can't invest. they can't make profit. consequently they don't know how to. when they don't behave like business or household, they are in denial that they don't recognize you have to cover your costs. the only way you do that is to raise taxes which slows the economy, lower the spending to slow economy or throw an inflation party. >> throw an inflation party because the fed will give you all the cash you want. >> they're doing it. >> i'm happy to raise the issue about invest this is a fast one that the president and democrats and a couple of republicans as well are trying to pull on us. the government doesn't invest. the government just spends. the government doesn't produce

wealth. it just consumes wealth. that is economics 101, junior high school economics. what is the government trying to do, pull the wool over our eyes? >> it doesn't make any sense to the economist or each of us, that they would invest. we use the word invest and i assume that means there will be a return. but the shareholders do not receive a return. they may in some instances, you talk about rows and military and other things receive a general public good. but there is no such thing as investment in a government it's a transfer of payment. >> got it. david buckner, thank you for joining us. >> good to be with you. >> battle wary wisconsin democrats may be on their way home soon, but the fight is far from over. where the next brawl is brewing next.

>> judge l0] al1]ndrewl0]: today an offer was made by defiant t meet with governor walker if he would travel to the border with illinois to meet them there. governor walker's response, as most of yours would be, "ridiculous." the 14 of the group were senators who fled two weeks ago to block a measure to take away power from the public

sector union it's drawn national attention, inspiring the union members across the country to demonstrate in solidarity. take a listen. [ chanting ] ♪ ♪ >> wisconsin, you are inspiring the people of ohio. >> you're inspiring the people of indiana! [ chanting ] >> you are inspiring the people of missouri. new hampshire! and pennsylvania. you're inspiring people all across this country! >> joining me now is mark mix, president of the national

right to work legal defense foundation a little come call -- comical. how broad is the movement, or are they having trouble getting people involved? >> you have a committed minority here, judge. they are out there marching. that is their right. >> of course. >> they can march and right and protest and that is a good thing. we're having a discussion for the first time about public government unionism. >> we are. >> people realize that right, making an emphasis for quotes is not a right that comes from our lives, from our humanity, thought, privacy, travel or association. it's nothing negotiated for in the contract with the government. if the government doesn't want it in the next contract, the government doesn't negotiate for it. this is the first time that the american public is recognizing and understanding that. >> that's right. we have having the discussion in the public domain right now. franklin roosevelt knew this

in 1937 when asked if he could bargain in government. he said no it's unthinkable we'd consider that. the model does not apply. george made said that in 1965. you can't bargain with the government. >> so many state houses run by republicans and democrat, my own state in new jersey, not governor christie but the predecessors gave away the store, the goods, gave the day contracts to require the state to bargain collectively. gave them healthcare and pension, the police in new jersey can retire at age 41. after 20 years on the job. 80% of the higher pay at the rest of their life. these are not written in stone. different environments can change them. >> it's not about the wages and the benefit it's about the process it's about injecting private party in labor manage relations of the taxpayers and the elected officials. how is it that someone, a private group get power equal

to sovereign to withhold necessary government? confrontational collective bargaining mod can not be applied in government. >> my gosh. the public from the private sector is different. take the teach your union where governor christie is doing battle and governor walker in wisconsin as well. mainly with the teachers. they know that the kids are going to show up in class no, matter how poor of a job they do. they know money comes from the taxpayers. they don't have competition. referral and private schools out there but the taxpayers will continue to pay taxes and middle class folks continue to send their kids to the school no matter how lousy of a job they do. what incentive is there to do a good job or save money and educate children properly? >> very little, judge. system is designed to reward time on the job and other elements to that. the secret to the debate is about compulsory unionism. the common denominator of the

states that richard trumka checked out is the right to work protection for individual workers. >> explain how it works. >> right to work law means a worker has a choice to join or pay dues to labor union as a condition of getting a job. the wisconsin, indiana, missouri bill has that. the new hampshire bill has that. pennsylvania bill has that. this is extracting the dues from workers. >> if those in the state are too ticked off to become law, the unions can't force everybody to join them. you say i'll negotiate with the state and not let the state take the dues from the paycheck and give it to the unions leaders whose family i disagree. >> it's about the dues money. the idea of representing yourself in the marketplace is another question. goes to right of collective bargaining, in the public sector. >> where do you see this ending in wisconsin? how much longer can they live

in motel 6 in still >> there is a strategy in place. what i suggest is the republicans will get together and take the bill apart and start trying to pass it. >> mark, pleasure. thank you for joining us. the white house is slowing the process. granting permits for offshore drilling. no surprise. price for a gallon of gas is quickly climbing to unchattered territory. is the obama administration standing in the way of any solution? what do you think? next.

i'm patti ann browne. president obama vowed to shut down detention center at guantanamo bay when he took office but today says new policies will help bring terrorists to justice. lawyer in the disappearance of natalee holloway says his

client will plead guilty to murder of woman in peru. actor charlie sheen has been fired from the sitcom $2-1/2 men." no decision has been made on the future of the series. for more details, go to foxnews.com. glenn beck returns in a moment but first shannon bream previews "special report." >> coming up, we'll look at the radicalization of americans. how big of a threat is it? the latest from the white house on libya and it bret baier reports from afghanistan. "special report" begins at 6:00 eastern. now back to "glenn beck." ♪ ♪ >> libyan warplanes launched an attack on rebel fighters today in an effort to keep them out of tri poe lie where president gaddafi still has a stronghold. it pushed oil prices to $106 earlier today.

charlie gasparino is here, and nancy skinner radio host of the nancy skinner show joins us now. charlie, to you first. the gasoline that went up radically in one week it went from february 23 to march 7. a frent of mine in california said she spent $4 a gallon this weekend. okay, that gas is already here. it's been here since long before libyan. how does it affect the price of gas here? >> people are betting what the future might be, with the price of gas. i tell you, ever since the egypt situation erupted, you know, people have been betting whether it would spread. and if it would spread, that what you hear from the

commodities traders they were going to bet that the price of oil -- it's not that difficult to figure out. go up dramatically, because unrest equates possibly another sort of cutback in oil supply. >> nancy, we know what happened with the petroleum, 31 oil wells out there. one a disaster, human beings died and tremendous ecological and financial damage. now a federal judge ordered the obama administration to accept applications for permits. they refused. he held them in contempt. they accepted and granted one application and they are still appealing him the government itself says there is nothing wrong with the 30 other oil wells which it ordered shut until the gulf of mexico could be cleaned up. why shouldn't the 30 oil wells be open in a time like this when middle america is suffering with $4 a gallon gas? why shouldn't we be drilling for more in a matter that is safe and even this administration approves on? >> we don't have the oil. we have 3% of the oil reserve

on the planet. the oil, even if they began drilling it today, decade away, would have nothing to do with what charlie said about the global market. >> i did not say that. >> the speculators rising -- >> price of oil is on the future exchange. if you tell me that we are going to have more oil in the future, price of oil will go down. if you bet on the futures. >> nancy, if the drilling starts tomorrow, if judge feldman order it start and the government appealing him, that would lower the price of gasoline the next day, which would help all the middle class americans that need to put gas in their cars to get to work. and takes kids to school. no? >> no way would drilling tomorrow change anything with the price of oil today. this is the futures market. the speculators are saying. >> right. talk about the future supply.

the future supply. >> long-term, charlie, yes, absolutely. we'll have a problem. because saudi arabia has oil fields since 1973. we need to invest in renewable energy. >> what is outrageous about this debate people like nancy force to us be held hostage to the volatile and insane part of the world. we have oil here. we should be drilling here and doing everything we can. explore green technology but not roll the dice on green technology because it hasn't word. >> middle east is a mess, saudi arabia could be next. why should livelihood be dependent on them? >> they shouldn't. we don't have oil. >> we have oil. we have oil in alaska.

we have oil other places. the price of oil, the minute they start drilling and minute we start to embrace nuclear power as well. >> nancy and charlie, thank you. thank you for joining us. obama sending a clear warning to libya today. end violence or you'll be held accountable what does that mean for the united states? next.

president obama warns libya leaders that the u.s. and nato allies are still considering military options in response to violence called by gaddafi supporters. what impact could it have on the united states and rest of the middle east? joining us now, the former ciaa counterterrorism analyst and author of best book on

osama bin laden. titled "osama bin laden." welcome to the "glenn beck program." >> thank you. >> how much of a threat is muammar gaddafi to the united states of america at the president time? >> zero, sir. >> what would be the basis? moral, political, economic or military for the american president to threaten military action against him? >> arrogance and racism is the answer. every time he opens his mouse he sounds like combination of kipling and woodrow wilson. he will teach the little brothers how to vote and elect people. a tragedy for america. he will get more of the kids killed in wars we can't get out of once we start. >> here is what i found dociling. over the weekend, secretary of defense gates said -- i'm paraphrasing -- any president that sends -- any secretary of

defense that does this should have his head examined. earlier last week, he said a no-fly zone is not easy to accomplish. first, destroy the antiaircraft weaponry on the ground and then destroy their planes on the ground. then we have to monitor land space twice the size of texas. does the president of the united states know what he is getting us involved in, if he threatens military action over there? >> i don't think so, sir. he is more concerned with his view, as most of the presidents have been in 20 years. he wants to be a good guy. he defines the worth of americans by what they do overseas, instead of looking to fix the problem of 20% of our children going to bed hungry every night he wants to go to war in north africa, which would start religious war across the region. >> you spent the bulk of your career in the c.i.a.

you know how intelligence works. would the president be aware of what is going on, on the ground? would he knows when he makes a statement like that, whether the rebels are likely to succeed or if they have their back to the wall? how they would react if they knew that the united states of america wanted gaddafi out? stated differently, would at no time threat of the united states against gaddafi coalesce libyans to support him because they probably hate americans more than they hate gaddafi? >> judge, whether or not they would support gaddafi, the focus of the war and libyan forces would turn on british forces that went in there. we would be the infidels and the occupiers and we would certainly create a situation not unlike iraq and afghanistan. and the president, of course,

won't have the will to use military power that the american people have paid for. the best bet here is congress to pass a resolution there will be no military action at all unless there is a declaration of war. >> which you know there would probably never be. gaddafi is interesting character in 1986, he was an enemy in 2003, he was a friend. does the -- does the government just decide who its enemies are or the friends are depending on the moment? as far as i know, he has never ban threat to united states of america. he may have ordered the plane shot down or killed individual americans that is another issue for another time. how does the government decides who are its enemies and friends? >> they are desperate for oil. they don't have to drill in the united states or exploit our own resources. so gaddafi became a good guy. he was our boy. just like mubarak.

>> is he any more of enemy to the united states today than two months ago? >> he's not an enemy, sir. the idea he could threaten the united states is insane. what the president is concerned about is the human rights mafia ganging up on him to say you have to rescue the libyan rebels. the reality is every one of gaddafi's libyans killed the rebel libyans or vice versa, it wouldn't make a lick of difference to life in the united states. >> thank you for your thoughts and sharing them with us. >> yes, sir. >> why the sudden love affair between the u.s. media and the obama administration official and al-jazeera next. )%)%)%)%)%)%

thank you for what you're doing 1.6 million u.s. watched al-jazeera online since friday. i'm one of them. fantastic tv. >> for the first time in last 20 years, the agenda of the united states and al-jazeera are the same it's about democracy it's about promoting a free flow of information.

>> al-jazeera, the primary arabic news source in the middle east getting praise in american media these days. even our own secretary of state hillary clinton had this to say last week. >> why are americans watching al-jazeera? we don't have anything to compete with it so they are turning to al-jazeera. you have set of global network al-jazeera has been leader in to literally change people's minds or attitudes. like it or hate it, it's effective. viewership of al-jazeera is going up in the united states because it's real news. you may not agree with it but you feel like you are getting real news around the clock. >> is secretary clinton right? is this one of the few sources left for real news, al-jazeera? should we welcome it in america? weseton is going to shown us.

welcome back to the "glenn beck program." what is she talking about? is al-jazeera to be trusted in english or another language? >> an old campaign song you campaign in poetry and govern in prose. if you are watching al-jazeera in arabic you get a different perspective on what is going on over there than here. a reason it hasn't taken off here it's like abc, cbs. there are segments today they bash with the tea party just like abc or nbc does, so there is no difference. >> do they have a message they convey about the anger that goes on over there that we don't get from the own home grown at fox or cnn or whoever is there and are they trustworthy? >> i get, you know, they are stationed in qatar and kuwait.

they are based out of those countries it's a propaganda. if you watch al-jazeera's arabic language clips, it's presenting all kind of crazy, you've got people saying jihaddist things all the time. they report on british citizen who join the taliban in debt to americans. if they present it here, they would get ratings and viewer chip. there would be glamour for what they are doing. they present it there and not get it to us here. >> last question. we have 30 seconds. quickly. why is hillary clinton saying this? why is she of all people telling americans to watch it? >> they have a similar agenda to what leftists like hillary clinton want to see advance here. another network that does what

abc, cbs, nbc does. >> got it. thank you for joining us. my final thought on today's show next.

does the government work for us or do we work for the government? have we reached the point where the got borrows money today with no intention of repaying it tomorrow? tonight, debt and taxes. since the beginning of the country, the federal

government spent more money than it's collected in taxes and other revenues. one of the inducement for the existence of federal government was its offer to the states to assume their revolutionary war debt. recall while george washington ran the continental army, the state has its own militia when we fought the british. they referred to themselves as states when the declaration of independence was signed and they were sovereign and free. they did accept the offer of political elites led by the original big government menace hamilton in return for granting some, just some of their sovereignty to the new federal government, they were relieved of the war debt from that point forward, the federal government was never really out of debt. the debts were war in wartime when the government borrowed heavily. eventually the debt became manageable.

not until the federal reserve came in existence in 1913 that debt started to get utterly out of control. even though the federal government had person at banks and institutions willing to loan money to it. though they could rely in clause in the constitution that requires the federal government to repay the debt. the federal reserve enabled to call presidents whom they appointed to run the bank and ask for cash the printing machine made it easier for president from woodrow wilson to barack obama to have the money to rage war or distribute wealth however they want. doing so caused inflation right away and raise taxes in the future when the debt had to be repaid. all presidents in the last 100 years from liberals like wilson and carter to conservatives like reagan and harding to socialists like fdr and obama have had little constraint on the ability to borrow the cash to pay for the

ventures and pushed to future generation the obligation to repay the loan. today, we're at the crossroad. the federal debt is over $14 trillion. some of the republicans want to add to that and democrats. today, 25% of all tax rev knew goes to pay the interest on the debt. today, your congress, the one that funded the government for another two weeks must decide what to do. if the congress raises the debt ceiling and borrows money to add to the $14 trillion it already owes it will compel future congresss to raise taxes to pay the debt back. one reason we have high taxes today is long out of office presidents and long out of office congresss have done this to us. shall we stop it now?